> ErikW wrote:

>> dkomo wrote:
>>

>>>petter.haggholm@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>

>>>>I recently set out on a quest to familiarise myself on at least an
>>>>educated layman's level with various sciences, such as relativity,
>>>>quantum physics, evolutionary biology, and so on. A short while ago, I
>>>>read Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene", which I found eloquent, informative,
>>>>and intuitively convincing -- in short, I'll buy it -- but as a
>>>>scientist (although not a biologist), I keep my mind open to the
>>>>possibility that it (and I) may be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>I gather that back in the 1970's, when "The Selfish Gene" was first
>>>>published, it was rather controversial. Now, I am lead to understand
>>>>that the gene-centric evolution theory is widely accepted. However, I
>>>>should not blind myself to the fact that the sources I have come across
>>>>-- as a reader of, and frequent "agreer" with, Richard Dawkins -- may ...

> I recently set out on a quest to familiarise myself on at least an
> educated layman's level with various sciences, such as relativity,
> quantum physics, evolutionary biology, and so on. A short while ago, I
> read Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene", which I found eloquent, informative,
> and intuitively convincing -- in short, I'll buy it -- but as a
> scientist (although not a biologist), I keep my mind open to the
> possibility that it (and I) may be wrong.
>
> I gather that back in the 1970's, when "The Selfish Gene" was first
> published, it was rather controversial. Now, I am lead to understand
> that the gene-centric evolution theory is widely accepted. However, I
> should not blind myself to the fact that the sources I have come across
> -- as a reader of, and frequent "agreer" with, Richard Dawkins -- may
> be biased. As such I ask you, hopefully a representative cross-section
> of the evolutionary biology community, the question: Am I safe in
> regarding the gene-centric view laid out by Dawkins as a generally
> accepted theory; that I may, within the boundaries of empirical
> scientific uncertainty, regard as fact? Is there still controversy on
> this topic? ...

> I recently set out on a quest to familiarise myself on at least an
> educated layman's level with various sciences, such as relativity,
> quantum physics, evolutionary biology, and so on. A short while...

>I recently set out on a quest to familiarise myself on at least an
>educated layman's level with various sciences, such as relativity,
>quantum physics, evolutionary biology, and so on. A short while ago, I
>read Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene", which I found eloquent, informative,
>and intuitively convincing -- in short, I'll buy it -- but as a
>scientist (although not a biologist), I keep my mind open to the
>possibility that it (and I) may be wrong.
>
>I gather that back in the 1970's, when "The Selfish Gene" was first
>published, it was rather controversial. Now, I am lead to understand
>that the gene-centric evolution theory is widely accepted. However, I
>should not blind myself to the fact that the sources I have come across
>-- as a reader of, and frequent "agreer" with, Richard Dawkins -- may
>be biased. As such I ask you, hopefully a representative cross-section
>of the evolutionary biology community, the question: Am I safe in
>regarding the gene-centric view laid out by Dawkins as a generally
>accepted theory; that I may, within the boundaries of empirical
>scientific uncertainty, regard as fact? Is there still controversy on
>this topic? Is there something I should read -- some layman-accessible ...

> of the evolutionary biology community, the question: Am I safe in
> regarding the gene-centric view laid out by Dawkins as a generally
> accepted theory; that I may, within the boundaries of empirical
> scientific uncertainty, regard as fact?

> I recently set out on a quest to familiarise myself on at least an
> educated layman's level with various sciences, such as relativity,
> quantum physics, evolutionary biology, and so on. A short while ago, I
> read Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene", which I found eloquent, informative,
> and intuitively convincing -- in short, I'll buy it -- but as a
> scientist (although not a biologist), I keep my mind open to the
> possibility that it (and I) may be wrong.
>
> I gather that back in the 1970's, when "The Selfish Gene" was first
> published, it was rather controversial. Now, I am lead to understand
> that the gene-centric evolution theory is widely accepted. However, I
> should not blind myself to the fact that the sources I have come across
> -- as a reader of, and frequent "agreer" with, Richard Dawkins -- may
> be biased. As such I ask you, hopefully a representative cross-section
> of the evolutionary biology community, the question: Am I safe in
> regarding the gene-centric view laid out by Dawkins as a generally
> accepted theory; that I may, within the boundaries of empirical
> scientific uncertainty, regard as fact? Is there still controversy on
> this topic? Is there something I should read -- some layman-accessible ...

> There is the 'Developmental Systems Theory' school of Susan Oyama and
> others (mostly, for some reason, associated with the political left)
> which criticizes gene-centrism for reasons I don't completely understand.

> In article darwin.ediacara.org>, petter.haggholm@gmail.com wrote:

> As a biologist but not a geneticist, I can only offer my understanding
> without pretending to know the subject exceedingly well:
>
> "Selfish gene" as a theory that the unit of selection is a single gene is a
> cute oversimplification, an approximation that helps to undertstand a
> number of aspects. Ultimately, however, life is more complicated and
> more often than not the phenotype is defined through the complex
> interaction of genes, so complex that trying to define adaptive features
> of a single gene becomes meaningless and futile exercise. In that
> respect, I think that at large the selection occurs on a level of a whole
> organism and that the unit of selection is a collection...

> FWIW, Dawkins outlines a "gene-centric" view where he describes humans
> as survival machines and replicators and then at the end of the book
> writes about how we can overcome our "selfish genes". I'm curious what
> he proposes. Does anybody have any info?